PDA

View Full Version : Anti-American propaganda found in US mosques


clk
5th February 2005, 10:18 AM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/020505dnrelislamlit.533e8.html

Anti-Jewish and anti-American propaganda published by the Saudi Arabian government has been on display at U.S. mosques, according to an American human rights group.

The publications – including some found in the largest mosque in the Dallas area – urge Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and to refuse service in "infidel" armies.

The preachings are in keeping with tenets of Wahhabi theology, the brand of Islam that prevails in Saudi Arabia.


Some of the statements found in the writings:

"Zionism ... is the worst racism in history because of its violence, atrocities, selfishness and arrogance."

:id: :id:

I have to admit, I laughed out loud when I read the statement above. Muslims are calling Jews the most violent people on Earth??


Anyways, here are the excuses the Muslim community is offering:

Some Muslim activists responded cautiously to the report.

"The majority of the stuff they picked is in Arabic, a language that most people in mosques don't read," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, a lobbying group that promotes Muslim causes.

"And I think we can rely on the common sense and good judgment of the American Muslim community that, if they are reading hate-filled rhetoric, they would remove it."


Uh, no, I don't think 'we' can rely on the common sense and good judgement of the American Muslim community.


Anyways, it was an alarming story. Not that I would expect Bush to do anything about Saudi Arabia, which is the greatest threat to US national security. I'm sure Bush will conveniently ignore this kind of thing, as he has conveniently ignored the numerous ties Saudia Arabia has to terrorists.

Skeptic
5th February 2005, 10:59 AM
Oh, shush.

There is nothing bad or violent in the Koran. And none of the bad or violent stuff in the Koran, which doesn't exist anyway, could POSSIBLY be promoted and emphasized by modern Muslims. Anybody who disagrees is a racist neocon.

Now go to the corner and write one hundred times:

"Islam is a religion of peace"
"Islam is a religion of peace"
"Islam is..."

clk
5th February 2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic

"Islam is a religion of peace"
"Islam is a religion of peace"
"Islam is..."

Which brings up a good point: any religion which HAS to claim that it is peaceful is probably not peaceful.

shecky
5th February 2005, 11:04 AM
Every religion claims to be a religion of peace. Perhaps this claim should always be taken with a grain of salt, the same as every religion's claim of truth.

clk
5th February 2005, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by shecky
Every religion claims to be a religion of peace. Perhaps this claim should always be taken with a grain of salt, the same as every religion's claim of truth.

Very few religions have to keep repeating the claim, though. And I don't know of many religions that wage war on every other religion in existence.

geni
5th February 2005, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by clk
Very few religions have to keep repeating the claim, though. And I don't know of many religions that wage war on every other religion in existence.

Christianity
Whatever you want to call the aztech relgion
The mongol relgion.

clk
5th February 2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by geni
Christianity
Whatever you want to call the aztech relgion
The mongol relgion.

Those religions (except Christianity) are obsolete, for lack of a better word. As far as Christianity is concerned, Islam is 100 times more violent than Christianity.

I can give you examples of Islam waging long term wars against Jews, Christians, Hindus, and even Buddhists.

Can you show me an example of Christians fighting long term wars against each of the other major religions?

geni
5th February 2005, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by clk
Which brings up a good point: any religion which HAS to claim that it is peaceful is probably not peaceful.

Zoroastrianism claims to be peaceful and is.

geni
5th February 2005, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by clk
Those religions (except Christianity) are obsolete, for lack of a better word. As far as Christianity is concerned, Islam is 100 times more violent than Christianity.

I can give you examples of Islam waging long term wars against Jews, Christians, Hindus, and even Buddhists.

Can you show me an example of Christians fighting long term wars against each of the other major religions?

Christianity vs islam goes without saying

Christianity vs Judaism has largly been in the form of oppression (but then judaism hasn't been a major relgion for a long time)

Christianity vs Hinduism. Occupation of india for a while to be honest contact between the two was rather recent so there hasn't been time for a decent war yet.

Christianity vs Buddism. various bits of empire building

Christianity vs Christianity loads

Christianity vs varius indinious relgions in africa, south america and australia. No long term battles but the near total destruction of the other relgions.

In short Christianity has been involved in fewer long term battles against other relgions for geographical reasons and because it has proved to be better at it.

Charlie Monoxide
5th February 2005, 12:10 PM
This kind of stuff bothers me. If you hate the US (with all its jews and infidels), why don't you just pack up your camel and go back to where you came from. The vast majority of immigrants come here looking for a better life for themselves and family.

When I was up in Canada a group of Armenians were protesting the nasty things the Turks did to them way back when. When interviewed on TV they were upset that the Canadian government didn't get more involved in their plight. Dude, didn't you come to Canada to get away from the poverty and hate? Why bring your problems here?

Charlie (a happy peace-loving legal alien) Monoxide

clk
5th February 2005, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by geni


In short Christianity has been involved in fewer long term battles against other relgions for geographical reasons and because it has proved to be better at it.

I'm not trying to say that Islam is the only violent religion or anything like that. Christianity very well may be violent, but it is atleast an order of magnitude less violent than Islam. You don't hear too much about Christian militants killing Russian babies in the name of Jesus. You don't see Christian militants fighting Hindus in Kashmir. You don't see Christian militants fighting Buddhists in Burma. That's what made me realize just how violent Islam is. I mean, they're fighting against Buddhists ?? WTF? As far as I know, Buddhists keep mostly to themselves and don't like to start trouble. For the most part, they are peaceful and don't fight unless provoked.

Many Islamic religous leaders have declared war against all 'infidels'. I doubt you will ever hear the pope say that kind of thing.

geni
5th February 2005, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by clk
I'm not trying to say that Islam is the only violent religion or anything like that. Christianity very well may be violent, but it is atleast an order of magnitude less violent than Islam. You don't hear too much about Christian militants killing Russian babies in the name of Jesus. You don't see Christian militants fighting Hindus in Kashmir. You don't see Christian militants fighting Buddhists in Burma.

Well no becuase there are no significant populations of Christians in those areas.

[b]
Many Islamic religous leaders have declared war against all 'infidels'. I doubt you will ever hear the pope say that kind of thing.

Crusades? The Great skisum?

Catholism is pretty peaceful right now however some of the preachers in the US south are not.

Jon_in_london
5th February 2005, 12:23 PM
"Zionism ... is the worst racism in history because of its violence, atrocities, selfishness and arrogance."


How is this anti-american? Or anti-jewish?

Zionism is a policy, a philosophy.

Mycroft
5th February 2005, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by shecky
Every religion claims to be a religion of peace. Perhaps this claim should always be taken with a grain of salt, the same as every religion's claim of truth.

Perhaps as part of that grain of salt we should be more aware of how specific religions are not peaceful and increase public awareness of the differences. In this way, religions can be encouraged to be more peaceful, and practicioners are more likely to choose and follow less violent interpretations of their beliefs.

clk
5th February 2005, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
"Zionism ... is the worst racism in history because of its violence, atrocities, selfishness and arrogance."


How is this anti-american? Or anti-jewish?

Zionism is a policy, a philosophy.

The materials found in the mosques had anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish propoganda. Zionism is defined as:"A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine."
Therefore, when they say Zionism 'is the worst racism', I assume they are referring to Jews.

Mycroft
5th February 2005, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
"Zionism ... is the worst racism in history because of its violence, atrocities, selfishness and arrogance."


How is this anti-american? Or anti-jewish?

Zionism is a policy, a philosophy.

While not every Jew is a Zionist, Zionism is Jewish nationalism. In condemning only Jewish nationalism, it is anti-Jewish.

clk
5th February 2005, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by geni
Well no becuase there are no significant populations of Christians in those areas.


Islamic radicals have proven to be adept at waging war against other religions through use of militants. One way they do this is that they train these militants at one location and then transport them to the location of fighting. In some cases, there is not a significant population of Muslims in the location of hostility, so that's why the militants are needed. If Christianity were as violent as Islam, there would also be Christian militants that go to fight other religions, but you don't see that because Christianity is not as violent as Islam.


Crusades? The Great skisum?

Catholism is pretty peaceful right now however some of the preachers in the US south are not.

No doubt that Christianity is not the most peaceful religion. In fact, in the past, it has probably been more violent than Islam. However, I believe that in today's world, Islam is easily the most violent religion, and that no other religion comes close to the wide spread brutality and opression of fundamentalist Islam.

TillEulenspiegel
5th February 2005, 02:05 PM
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.

Wow anti Israeli and anti American propaganda huh? Who woulda thunk it?

Skeptic
5th February 2005, 05:33 PM
I mean, they're fighting against Buddhists ?? WTF?

The Buddhists aren't Muslim, and are, therefore, subhuman.

Jon_in_london
5th February 2005, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Mycroft
While not every Jew is a Zionist, Zionism is Jewish nationalism. In condemning only Jewish nationalism, it is anti-Jewish.

Thats is ludicrous logic and frankly beneath you.

Its Like Saying that becaus the Nazis are German nationalists then "In condemning only German nationalism, it is anti-German."

geni
5th February 2005, 07:19 PM
The buddists are fihgting the Hindus in Sri Lanka.

clk
5th February 2005, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Thats is ludicrous logic and frankly beneath you.

Its Like Saying that becaus the Nazis are German nationalists then "In condemning only German nationalism, it is anti-German."

Jon,
While that quote may be up for debate, there were other materials found in the mosque that were clearly anti-Christian and anti-Jewish:

"[T]he cursing of the Christians is permissible, same as the cursing of the Jews."

Non-Muslims are "enemies to Allah, his prophet and believers."

"To be dissociated from the infidels is to hate them for their religion, to leave them, never to rely on them for support, not to admire them, to be on one's guard against them, never to imitate them and always to oppose them in every way according to Islamic law."

"If a person said: I believe in Allah alone and confirm the truth of everything from Muhammed, except in his forbidding fornication, he becomes a disbeliever. For that, it would be lawful for Muslims to spill his blood and to take his money."

Jon_in_london
5th February 2005, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by clk
Jon,
While that quote may be up for debate, there were other materials found in the mosque that were clearly anti-Christian and anti-Jewish:

Maybe, but I werent talkin bout that other crap now woz I?

Skeptic
5th February 2005, 10:15 PM
Well, I'll accept that Christianity is as dangerous a religion as Islam, when I'll start hearing reports of anti-Islamic propaganda claiming Saudi Arabia must be taken over by Christianity, being found in Saudi Arabia's churches.

Oh wait--there ARE no churches, by law, in Saudi Arabia. Nevermind...

Tmy
5th February 2005, 10:16 PM
Chistianty has some pretty bad things to say about gays.

Mycroft
5th February 2005, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Thats is ludicrous logic and frankly beneath you.

Your approval is not important to me so an appeal to vanity such as this will not sway my opinion.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Its Like Saying that becaus the Nazis are German nationalists then "In condemning only German nationalism, it is anti-German."

There is more than one way to use the term "nationalist" and without going to the bother of looking them up, I will just say that the desire for self-determination of a group of people who had been traditionally oppressed is different from the sort of nationalism expressed by the Nazis.

Also, anti-Nazism from the time of the Nazi era could also be described as anti-German. That Germans today repudiate Nazism (mostly) doesn’t change that.

Mycroft
5th February 2005, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by geni
The buddists are fihgting the Hindus in Sri Lanka.

They have both buddhists and hindus in Sri Lanka, but I've heard nothing to suggest the conflict is divided amongst religious lines.

geni
5th February 2005, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Mycroft
They have both buddhists and hindus in Sri Lanka, but I've heard nothing to suggest the conflict is divided amongst religious lines.

The Sinhalese are 85% Buddhist; the Timil are Hindu. A google search will confirm this.

Art Vandelay
6th February 2005, 12:17 AM
Saying that "Zionism ... is the worst racism in history because of its violence, atrocities, selfishness and arrogance" is not anti-Jewish because not all Jews are Zionists is a bit like saying that "Christ-killers don't deserve to live" is not anti-Jewish because not all Jews are Christ-killers. Fact is, many people use "Zionist" and "Jewish" interchangeably.

zenith-nadir
6th February 2005, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Fact is, many people use "Zionist" and "Jewish" interchangeably. I had this argument when the Iranian Judoka refused to fight the Israeli Judoka at the Olympics. Some regular JREFers denied it as fact.
Jan 24, 2005, 17:31 - The Palestinian Information Center (http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/article_10138.shtml)

The rate of foreign investments in the Zionist entity slipped to 570 million dollars or 50% in December 2004 in view of the Palestinian intifada that broke out in late December 2000, a recent Zionist statistics report revealed.25 January 2005 by admin @ Hamas online (http://www.hamasonline.com/index.php?itemid=1448)

Head of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Yuval Steinitz said that he didn’t rule out that the Zionist entity might assassinate Khalid MishaalAugust 25, 2002 - iraqwatch.org (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/Iraq/INA/iraq-ina-zionists-082502.htm)

The Zionist entity is pushing the United States to attack Iraq as a way out of the Palestinian Intifada, Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan said on Saturday.

If I go to www.islamonline.net (http://www.islamonline.net/completesearch/english/AllsearchAck.asp) and type in "Zionist entity" the search function gives these results;

Record(s) Found in News - 21458
Record(s) Found in Society - 283
Record(s) Found in Entertainment - 786
Record(s) Found in Contemporary Issues - 105
Record(s) Found in Views - 994
Record(s) Found in Health & Science - 1004
Record(s) Found in Discover Islam - 12
Record(s) Found in New To Islam - 17
Record(s) Found in My Journey To Islam - 84
Record(s) Found in Hajj - 74
Record(s) Found in Ramadan - 220
Record(s) Found in Special Pages - 465
Record(s) Found in Fatwa bank - 3752
Record(s) Found in Cyber Counselor - 2158
Record(s) Found in Live Dialogue - 634
Record(s) Found in Hajj Counsels - 250
Record(s) Found in Live Fatwa - 619
Record(s) Found in Ask About Islam - 659

Therefore, anyone who denies that zionist is not interchangable with Israel or jews in the Arab world is 100% incorrect.

geni
6th February 2005, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Therefore, anyone who denies that zionist is not interchangable with Israel or jews in the Arab world is 100% incorrect.

The flaw in your argument here is that Israel does not equal jew.

zenith-nadir
6th February 2005, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by geni
The flaw in your argument here is that Israel does not equal jew. The flaw in your argument is that has 0% to do with the fact that Arabs commonly refer to Israel as the zionist entity and jews as zionists. I just illustrated that clearly and your attempt to subvert it is noted.

clk
6th February 2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by geni
The flaw in your argument here is that Israel does not equal jew.

This is really a matter of semantics. I don't think it matters whether or not 'Zionist' equals 'Jew'. If the only statement they found in the mosques was: "Zionism ... is the worst racism in history because of its violence, atrocities, selfishness and arrogance.", then maybe you and Jon would have a point about how it is not necessarily degrading Jews. But the fact is, there were other materials found that clearly advocated violence towards Jews. Therefore, this whole argument about that specific word in that specific quote is kind of pointless. If Jon or you would like to have that debate, I suggest you start another thread about what the word 'Zionist' really means. IMO, most people use 'Zionist' and 'Jew' interchangeably, but again, I don't see how that is relevant to this thread.

Skeptic
6th February 2005, 09:44 AM
To claim that wanting "only" the "zionists" dead and "only" the "zionist entity" destroyed is NOT antisemitic because not all jews are zionists, is like claiming that wanting "only" all feminists gang-raped to teach them obedience to men, and that "only" the feminists are infernal whores who will burn in hell forever, is NOT hatered of women--because not all women are feminists.

The point missed is that the antisemitism here is not in the semantic differentiation between jews and zionists, but in the morbid, genocidal, unrelenting hatered of the "zionists".

This is not the same thing at all as criticising zionism or having disagreement with israeli policy. THAT need not be antisemitism--in the same way that, say, saying that the professor who recently claimed Beethoven's ninth symphony is "an allegory for rape" is a loony does not necessarily mean you hate women.

But if you want all feminists gang-raped, you could not possibly be anything but a hater of women in general; it is not a position anybody who does not hate women could take. And if you want the "zionist entity" destroyed and the jews there killed, expelled, or (at best) reduce to submission to Muslims, you cannot possibly be anything but an anti-semite.

Sorry, guys, the "I am not an anti-semite, I just want zionism destroyed" canard is no more convincing than "I do not hate women, I just want feminists gang-raped." You're not saying ALL women are feminists, are you???

Tmy
6th February 2005, 11:34 AM
"Anti-Jewish and anti-American propaganda published by the Saudi Arabian government "


Ummm isnt our anger misplaced. Why be pissed with the muslim religion when its the Saudi govt thats the culprit. Arent those asswipes supposed to be our pals???

Mycroft
6th February 2005, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Tmy
Ummm isnt our anger misplaced. Why be pissed with the muslim religion when its the Saudi govt thats the culprit. Arent those asswipes supposed to be our pals???

I don't know about you, Tmy, but I'm not aware of anyone in this thread who has expressed anger at the Muslim religion over this. We all agree that any anger should be at Saudi Arabia.

From the OP:

"Anyways, it was an alarming story. Not that I would expect Bush to do anything about Saudi Arabia, which is the greatest threat to US national security. I'm sure Bush will conveniently ignore this kind of thing, as he has conveniently ignored the numerous ties Saudia Arabia has to terrorists."

geni
6th February 2005, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by zenith-nadir
The flaw in your argument is that has 0% to do with the fact that Arabs commonly refer to Israel as the zionist entity and jews as zionists. I just illustrated that clearly and your attempt to subvert it is noted.

Last I cheacked Isreal would probably not exist without zionism.

Tmy
6th February 2005, 12:03 PM
1/2 the replies are about which religion is more violent that the other. Saudi Arabia is barely mentioned.

Mycroft
6th February 2005, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Tmy
1/2 the replies are about which religion is more violent that the other. Saudi Arabia is barely mentioned.

You're right. Mea Culpa.

zenith-nadir
6th February 2005, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by geni
Last I cheacked Isreal would probably not exist without zionism. Now you are just going around in circles. When arabs and arab regimes refer to 'zionists' nine times out of ten they are refering to present day jews and present day Israel. They are not refering to dead europeans who lived in the late 19th century or early 20th century.

clk
6th February 2005, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Tmy
"Anti-Jewish and anti-American propaganda published by the Saudi Arabian government "


Ummm isnt our anger misplaced. Why be pissed with the muslim religion when its the Saudi govt thats the culprit. Arent those asswipes supposed to be our pals???

Why is that kind of material in mosques in the first place? Somebody must have put it there. Not only that, it appeared to have been tolerated, as it was never removed from the mosques. I think there is definitely a reason to be angry against Saudi Arabia, as they are anything but our friends. But I also find it upsetting that Muslim Americans would allow that kind of hateful material inside mosques. If something on the scale of 9/11 had happened in other countries, there is a good chance there would have been riots against Muslims in those countries. Americans showed great restraint and tolerance toward the Muslim community after 9/11, and this is how they repay us?

CapelDodger
6th February 2005, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by geni
The mongol relgion. Unfair. The Mongols were very tolerant of religions, and imposed religious tolerance on their subjects. Not that I'm pro-Mongol, you understand.

CapelDodger
6th February 2005, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by clk
I'm not trying to say that Islam is the only violent religion or anything like that. Christianity very well may be violent, but it is atleast an order of magnitude less violent than Islam. You don't hear too much about Christian militants killing Russian babies in the name of Jesus. You don't see Christian militants fighting Hindus in Kashmir. You don't see Christian militants fighting Buddhists in Burma. That's what made me realize just how violent Islam is. I mean, they're fighting against Buddhists ?? WTF? As far as I know, Buddhists keep mostly to themselves and don't like to start trouble. For the most part, they are peaceful and don't fight unless provoked.

Many Islamic religous leaders have declared war against all 'infidels'. I doubt you will ever hear the pope say that kind of thing. Christianity has been on the back foot recently, but it got into all this kind of behaviour in the past. Russians bayoneted Moslem babies in the Caucasus with the blessing and encouragement of the Orthodox Church. There was no Muslim community within Christendom until the Austrians took Bosnia off the Ottomans. Where Christians went - Spain, Sicily, southern Italy - out went the Muslims, one way or another. The Islamic world, on the other hand, has always included significant Christian communities (amongst others).

It isn't religion that's behind the recent Islamic extremism, but Arabism. More specifically perhaps, Sunni Arabism. Not all non-Arab Muslims notice that.

clk
6th February 2005, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by CapelDodger
Christianity has been on the back foot recently, but it got into all this kind of behaviour in the past. Russians bayoneted Moslem babies in the Caucasus with the blessing and encouragement of the Orthodox Church. There was no Muslim community within Christendom until the Austrians took Bosnia off the Ottomans. Where Christians went - Spain, Sicily, southern Italy - out went the Muslims, one way or another. The Islamic world, on the other hand, has always included significant Christian communities (amongst others).


Like I've said before, Christianity was more violent in the past, and was probably more violent than Islam. But there's little doubt that Islam is the most violent religion currently.


It isn't religion that's behind the recent Islamic extremism, but Arabism. More specifically perhaps, Sunni Arabism. Not all non-Arab Muslims notice that.

I am interested in your definition of 'Arabism'. If by 'Arabism' you are referring to the general culture of Middle Eastern countries, then I would argue that 'Arabism' is largely influenced by Islam.

Skeptic
9th February 2005, 02:52 PM
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.02.08.HouseofHate-X.gif

INRM
9th February 2005, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Tmy
Chistianty has some pretty bad things to say about gays.

Actually, that was mostly carry-over from Judaism...

Judaism says that gays are detestable, an abomination (depends on the version you read), and should be put to death via stoning, and no sorrow should be felt for them. No ands ifs or buts.

Christianity says the same thing: At least the old-testament does, but the New Testament says that basically they burn in their desire towards one another and it won't be long before they receive due penalty for their errors-- meaning hell-- but it implies mankind need not or should not punish them because in due time they will. Christianity allows for forgiveness should they apologize for their sin, really mean it, and not do it ever again. Fundies will use the "if you lust after somebody" you commit adultery in your heart argument... well, then I'm a HUGE adulterer, man! But that could be applied to an extremist by Gays... but, as it said -- they will eventually receive due penalty for their errors. Implying mankind shouldn't do anything. And like any other sin they can be forgiven should they repent.

(I'm decently versed in this because I was raised Christian).

Most Christian fundamentalists forget this part and just focus on the old testament. That's because in the old testament, there wasn't any of that forgiveness stuff. You could just punish them, and some people just hate forgiving, and just like to think about the punishment side of the equation.

Not certain about Islam... anybody have any good data on this? Never read the whole Koran.

-INRM

Someone
9th February 2005, 09:37 PM
I think if people were to invade my country I would get a bit violent. Everything from a wide tolerance of the euphemistically named female circumcision to severe unwillingness to tolerate western norms can be laid against the Moslem community. But except for a certain cave dwelling gentleman, his followers, imitators and predecessors - a few in other words - a great lust for violence cannot be associated with the faith or people. Invading Iraq and Israel not leaving the West Bank and Gaza Strip alone and entering those places in the first place, the US propping up despots like the House of Saud, help explain the violence. Put simply, it is not without just cause, though more often than not, much of the violence is unjust and counterproductive. Invading Iraq and all that followed, be it savage torture of prisoners, US corporate plunder of oil revenue (Bechtel is paid with the oil revenue), $9bn missing, Fallujah, has almost fully reversed the good impression created by the US' post 9/11 restraint.

clk
10th February 2005, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by Someone
I think if people were to invade my country I would get a bit violent. Everything from a wide tolerance of the euphemistically named female circumcision to severe unwillingness to tolerate western norms can be laid against the Moslem community. But except for a certain cave dwelling gentleman, his followers, imitators and predecessors - a few in other words - a great lust for violence cannot be associated with the faith or people.

The Indians were able to successfully drive out the British through the use of non-violence. I don't remember Hindu suicide bombers killing British civilians in the name of Vishnu. So occupation by a foreign force is no excuse for the usage of sub-human tactics.
I mean, in Iraq, we're trying to give those guys their own democracy, and we will leave once that happens. But they keep trying to kill people that are trying to help their country (Iraqi police officers, etc.), and they have no qualms about beheading journalists. They do all of this in the name of Allah. I have yet to see another example of such a violent religion in this day and age.

Someone
10th February 2005, 06:16 AM
But you are ignoring the disaster this effort to bring democracy have brought in its wake. A 44% turnout (the higher figure relates only to registered voters, unregisters eligible voters could vote and often did), a failure to restore basic services like electricity and schools to even the deficient levels maintained in the last years of Saddam, a very cruel anti-insurgent effort that actually fostered a problem which did not really exist initially and which has largely failed, the related matter of a police and national guard who are grossly imcompetent and no less cruel than their Baathist predecessors (much of the abuses are their work), are just aspects of the disaster. The rebels, some 200,000 of them, seem mostly to be nationalistic in their outlook. Given the nature of Moslem societies, any action will involve some sort of invocation of Allah.

While those AQ fanatics grab the attention of the media, the insurgency is more about attacking US troops and their Iraqi allies, than creating an Islamic state. Incidentally some of the occupation's ostensible supporters want and may well get an Islamic state. Zaraqawi is likely not the mastermind the US claim him to be. Whether 1950s Kenya or Algeria and other similar insurrections and counter-insurrection efforts, what is happening in Iraq sets no record in terms of depravity. India was run substantially with consent of the local ruling element. Gandhi had only to deprive this collaboration of legitimacy. Sadly violence has often only been the sole means of gaining independence in the colonial and post colonial world. The US claims that the insurgents are a bitter clique of fanatics (a nonsense as no guerrilla movement can function without local aid) fulfill that dictum where people who fail to learn the lessons of history repeat the same old mistakes (something along those lines anyway).

Whether some fanatics in Iraq Allah their way through blood, is neither here nor there. It means little. Arabs invoke God a lot. It does not make Islam inherently violent.

clk
10th February 2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Someone
But you are ignoring the disaster this effort to bring democracy have brought in its wake. A 44% turnout (the higher figure relates only to registered voters, unregisters eligible voters could vote and often did), a failure to restore basic services like electricity and schools to even the deficient levels maintained in the last years of Saddam, a very cruel anti-insurgent effort that actually fostered a problem which did not really exist initially and which has largely failed, the related matter of a police and national guard who are grossly imcompetent and no less cruel than their Baathist predecessors (much of the abuses are their work), are just aspects of the disaster. The rebels, some 200,000 of them, seem mostly to be nationalistic in their outlook. Given the nature of Moslem societies, any action will involve some sort of invocation of Allah.

While those AQ fanatics grab the attention of the media, the insurgency is more about attacking US troops and their Iraqi allies, than creating an Islamic state. Incidentally some of the occupation's ostensible supporters want and may well get an Islamic state. Zaraqawi is likely not the mastermind the US claim him to be. Whether 1950s Kenya or Algeria and other similar insurrections and counter-insurrection efforts, what is happening in Iraq sets no record in terms of depravity. India was run substantially with consent of the local ruling element. Gandhi had only to deprive this collaboration of legitimacy. Sadly violence has often only been the sole means of gaining independence in the colonial and post colonial world. The US claims that the insurgents are a bitter clique of fanatics (a nonsense as no guerrilla movement can function without local aid) fulfill that dictum where people who fail to learn the lessons of history repeat the same old mistakes (something along those lines anyway).

Whether some fanatics in Iraq Allah their way through blood, is neither here nor there. It means little. Arabs invoke God a lot. It does not make Islam inherently violent.

This type of violence does not solely occur in Iraq, though. Remember what the Muslim fundamentalists did in Beslan? They held children captive for several days and denied them any food or water. In Iraq, they are killing civilian workers and beheading innocent journalists. In Afghanistan they used to execute women for minor infractions. The list goes on and on. I have yet to see this kind of widespread brutality in other cultures.


Arabs invoke God a lot. It does not make Islam inherently violent.


I disagree that their invoking God is meaningless. I think alot of the brutal acts they have committed may have not taken place had they been Christian or Hindu or whatever. Islam teaches these people that "if you become a martyr, God will give you 70 virgins, 70 wives and everlasting happiness." Other religions state that killing someone else will result in you going to hell or something equally bad. Maybe other religions also have questionable material, but their cultures frown on killing. The Muslim world seems to be opposite.

Someone
10th February 2005, 07:16 PM
Christianity developed the Just War theory to allow soldiers to fight and kill and war to be waged without it being sinful. The early Church at first opposed soldiering entirely and later insisted that soldiers do penance. There are also those WWI chaplains who urged their men to slaughter the Hun. The Just War might be necessary but meeting its criteria is easy for the liars who tend to attain elected high office. War is more central to Islam, but a Jihad is something defensive, can only be launched by a valid authority like a caliph advised by the ulema (Osama considers himself valid enough but most Moslems disagree as do its scholars), and only soldiers in combat can be harmed. Neither civilians nor off-duty soldiers can be attacked. The 70 virgins ought to on Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/religion/religion.asp).

Now as to brutality. The British in Kenya skinned Mau Mau internees alive, castrated others, askaris skewered children, and much else on those lines. The religious motive was very substantial. The Mau Mau were anti-Christian and those fighting them regarded the Mau Mau as evil and that the end justified the means. This internment process was protested ineffectually by some clerics, but others like some pistol packing Catholic missionaries, had Mau Mau beaten while they preached. The Protestants tended not to have internees tortured while they preached. Christian sadism does very much outdo whatever Moslems have done. Remember too that those insurgents are fighting to end the occupation. Attacks on any who might be allied to the occupier is what happens in nearly all insurrections. Read on this matter. You need to.

If one cares to read on Indian history intercommunal killings were sadly common at certain points in time. The numbers killed through Mountbatten's bungled partitioning were astounding. Unless you believe that Moslems started that, the point has to be made, very simply, that given context men of every faith will be near equally depraved or complicit therein.

Skeptic
10th February 2005, 09:10 PM
There is something very wrong with the idea that some cultures, e.g. Arab/Muslim ones, are "not ready" or "do not want" democracy BECAUSE they always lived under tyrrany so "it's their culture", etc.

This has the same logic as claims in the past that black people must enjoy slavery since they always were (or owned) slaves, or that women don't really want to vote since they never did before, that the Russians must just love communism since it controls the country so long, etc., etc.

It is "blaming the victim", quite an odd position to take--especially from groups from the left which are supposed to be idealistic in their views of human freedom and human rights. I mean, suppose it turns out that X, after being held in prison for 20 years, was actually innocent of the crime. On this "logic", it is a bad thing to release him now--for, after all, since he lived in prison so long, surely he just "isn't ready" for freedom.

Why is this a horrible miscarriage of justice in the case of person X, but somehow "realism" and "understanding their culture" when it applies to millions of "Mr. Xs" kept in a prison-of-a-state by despots for 20 years?

Skeptic
10th February 2005, 09:24 PM
"The majority of the stuff they picked is in Arabic, a language that most people in mosques don't read,"

I suppose this means that monsque doesn't bother to have any copies of the Koran around; after all, it's Arabic, and most of them don't read it.